US v. Rodney Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00110-AWA-JEB-1,4:09-cv-00076-JBF-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999263922]. Mailed to: Rodney Jones. [13-7184]

Appeal: 13-7184

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/20/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODNEY EDWARD JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00110-AWA-JEB-1; 4:09-cv-00076-JBFDEM)

Submitted:

December 16, 2013

Decided:

December 20, 2013

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7184

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/20/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney

Edward

Jones

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Jones has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-7184

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 12/20/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3